Validation of the four-factorTeam Climate Inventory in

GreeceSofia C. Chatzi and Ioannis Nikolaou

Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

Abstract

Purpose – Innovation among teammembers has long been an area of interest to social scientists, andparticularly to industrial/organizational psychologists. The purpose of this paper is to examine thefactor structure of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI), a multidimensional team-level measure ofteam-working style, in Greece.

Design/methodology/approach – The TCI was translated into Greek and administered to a totalof 52 work teams (n ¼ 236 individuals) in clerical and shop floor working positions employed in avariety of jobs in the public and private sector.

Findings – An item analysis indicated that all original TCI items, except one, should be retained inthe Greek version of the TCI. Further analyses yielded high internal consistency both for the full scaleand for the four dimensions, and also acceptable discriminant validity among the four scales. Anexploratory factor analysis was also successful in extracting the four original factors, accounting for55.67 percent of the total variance.

Research limitations/implications – The results provided further support for the validity of theoriginal version of the TCI.

Practical implications – It is concluded that the Greek adaptation of the TCI is a potentially usefulinstrument to measure group climate dimensions that may facilitate work teams’ innovative capacity.

Originality/value – The findings provided support for the adequacy of the TCI to measure teamclimate for innovation in Greece

Keywords Innovation, Teamworking, Climate, Organizational culture, Greece

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionInnovation has been defined by West and Farr (1989, p. 16) as:

. . . the intentional introduction and application within a role, group, or organization of ideas,processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit to adoption, designed tosignificantly benefit role performance, the group, the organization or the wider society.

Innovation has been studied at different levels of analysis. More specifically, researchhas shed light upon a number of factors at the individual, group, and, more widely, theorganizational level of analysis (see Amabile, 1988; Anderson et al., 2004; Andersonand King, 1993; King, 1990; King and Anderson, 2002; Van de Ven et al., 1989; West,1990, 2001, 2002).

Research on creativity deals with identifying individual-level factors that promotesuggestion-making. For example, traditionally the focus has been on variables such asjob competence, intrinsic task motivation, and creative personality (Amabile andGryskiewicz, 1989; Axtell et al., 2000; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Unsworth andWest, 1998). Job autonomy has also been shown to be one of the critical components of

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

341

International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis

Vol. 15 No. 4, 2007pp. 341-357

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1934-8835

DOI 10.1108/19348830710900142

individual innovative behavior (Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). Considering widerorganizational factors, most research has focused on the effects of the organizationclimate on the individual and group innovation. A climate supportive of innovationencourages effective innovation (Knapp, 1963; Pelz, 1956; Thistlethwaite, 1963;Torrance, 1965; West and Anderson, 1996).

Concerning group innovation, research has explored variables such asheterogeneity of group composition, which has been found to be related to groupinnovation (Jackson, 1996; McGrath, 1984). Rogers (1954) suggested that cohesivenessamong team members determines the degree to which individuals believe that they cansuggest new ideas without being censured (see Scott and Bruce, 1994). Groupinnovation increases when members feel that new ideas are encouraged and expected,and when they feel safe enough to participate in decision making and voice their ideas(Anderson and West, 1998). On the other hand, research on team size provides greaterevidence that teams with a sufficient number of members to perform the team task areeffective (Guzzo, 1988; Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1990; West and Anderson,1996). Actually, previous research has concluded that there is a curvilinear relationshipbetween team size and innovation (Jackson, 1996; Poulton, 1995, cited in Anderson andWest, 1996).

Findings have also shown that team heterogeneity is strongly related to teaminnovation (Jackson, 1996; McGrath, 1984). Teams bring together people from differentdisciplines and functions who have pertinent expertise about the proposed innovationproblem (Galbraith, 1977; Kanter, 1988; Lovelace et al., 2001). However, contradictoryfindings report increased levels of conflict in teams with diverse members. Diversityappears to increase conflict, reduce cohesion, complicate internal communications, andhamper coordination within the team (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Dougherty, 1987;Kiesler, 1978; Shaw, 1971; Pfeffer and O’Reilly, 1987).

Climate: definitional issues – how did the workgroup climate for innovationarise?There has been considerable attention among organizational and social psychologistsgiven to the concept of climate (Campbell et al., 1970; Schneider and Reichers, 1983;Rousseau, 1988; Schneider, 1990), but differences in opinions exist about how to defineand measure climate at different levels of analysis. For example, James and Sells (1981,p. 276) define climate as:

individuals’ cognitive representations of proximal environments . . . expressed in terms ofpsychological meaning and significance to the individual.

According to the same authors, climate is the “‘ambience’ of an organization . . . variouspatterns of influence on employee (member) behavior, generated by prevailingenvironmental conditions in an organization” (Sells and James, 1987). Others have putthe emphasis on the significance of shared perceptions of organizational policies,practices and procedures. Shared meaning evolves from the communicativeinteractions between individuals in the workplace. Since members of the same workgroup interact with each other more than with members of other groups, Schneider andReichers (1983) argued that different work groups will generate different meaningsregarding events, practices, and procedures that may be constant throughout theorganization. It was those shared perceptions that compelled Anderson and West

IJOA15,4

342

(1998) to develop a measure of proximal work group climate. More specifically, theydefined the proximal work group as “either the permanent or semi-permanent team towhich individuals are assigned, whom then identify with regularly in order to performwork-related tasks” (Anderson and West, 1998, p. 236).

In the late 1990s, an extensive literature review on team climate for innovation wascarried out by West and Anderson, examining factors such as organizational climate,team effectiveness, and innovation at work (see West, 1990; West and Anderson, 1996).From this research, four team climate factors were extracted as being critical indetermining effective team performance and levels of innovative behavior in teams.These factors are: “vision”, “participative safety”, “task orientation”, and “support forinnovation” (West, 1990; West and Anderson, 1996). According to this model, for ateam to be innovative, it must have a clearly defined strategy and shared objectivesabout the purpose of the team within the organization. Participation in decision makingon the other hand, tends to foster greater effectiveness and commitment (Bowers andSeashore, 1966; Coch and French, 1948; Lawler and Hackman, 1969; West andAnderson, 1996), since the expertise of all team members is likely to be brought to bearin the process of decision making. Openness among team members in the exchange ofinformation and ideas facilitate team functioning and task execution and, hence,effectiveness (Wright and Cordery, 2003), including every byproduct of teameffectiveness such as team innovation. These processes can be the result of a sharedconcern with the quality of team task, or what has been called task orientation (West,1990; West and Anderson, 1996). Within teams this is evidenced by emphasis on auditsystems for evaluating and modifying performance, critical approaches to quality ofperformance, intra-team advice, feedback and cooperation, mutual monitoring, clearoutcome criteria, exploration and emergence of opposing opinions, and a concern toprovide a high quality product, process, and service.

Finally, teams that are willing to take risks and experiment with every innovationproduced by team members will result in increased innovation, which means thatinnovation is more likely to occur in contexts where innovative attempts are applaudedregardless of the possibility of failure (Amabile, 1983; Kanter, 1983; West andAnderson, 1996). Support for innovation is important for team functioning too. This isthe expectation, approval and practical support for attempts to introduce new andimproved ways of doing things in the work environment. Within teams, new ideas maybe characteristically rejected or ignored, or they find both verbal and practical support.

Based on the four-factor model of work group innovation of West (1990; Andersonand West, 1998), Anderson and West (1994) developed a multidimensional team-levelmeasure of team-working style serving as a team development tool to facilitateinterventions in work groups related to innovation. The original 116-item TeamClimate Inventory (TCI) was subjected to exploratory and confirming factor analyses todifferent samples to ensure that it was measuring the factors that it was supposed tomeasure (Anderson and West, 1996, 1998). These analyses led to the published 44-itemshort-form version (Anderson and West, 1994), which includes items that refer todifferent though essential aspects of team climate for innovation. Subsequently, theTCI was translated into several languages and was psychometrically tested in differentsamples throughout Europe, including Swedish (Agrell and Gustafson, 1994), Finish(Kivimaki et al., 1997), Italian (Ragazzoni et al., 2002), and Norwegian (Mathisen et al.,2004; Mathisen et al., 2006), among others.

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

343

The short form of TCI has four super ordinate scales divided into 13 sub-scales. Inaccordance with the West (1990) model, the four scales refer to:

(1) Vision. How clearly defined, shared and valued are the team’s objectives. Thisscale is divided into the following sub-scales: clarity, perceived value,attainability, and sharedness (11 items).

(2) Participative safety. Whether team members share the information during thedecision-making process, how often they interact with each other, and to whatextent they feel safe to propose and implement new ways of doing things or newand improved products. This category includes four sub-categories such as:information sharing, safety, influence, and interaction frequency (12 items).

(3) Task orientation. To what extent the team has as the main objective to provideexcellence in quality and task performance in relation to the shared mission.This scale consists of sub-scales for excellence, appraisal, and ideation (sevenitems).

(4) Support for innovation. Whether team members perceive supportiveness as acritical factor to take an innovative approach. Team members take action whenthey believe that other team members and the supervisor are supportive ofevery new idea that might challenge established systems. This dimensionconsists of the two sub-scales of articulated support and enacted support (eightitems).

In addition, six items are included that measure social desirability in responsesdesigned to alert those that fill in the inventory to potentially fake responses.

Since its initial development, TCI has been psychometrically tested on differentsamples including primary healthcare teams, community psychometric care teams,social service teams, management teams, production and clerical teams in the publicand private sectors (Anderson and West, 1998; Agrell and Gustafson, 1994; Kivimakiet al., 1997).

Results from internal homogeneity tests reveal significant levels of internalconsistency for four dimensions of the TCI with alphas ranging between 0.84 and 0.94for the UK version (Anderson and West, 1998), 0.86 and 0.91 for the Swedish version(Agrell and Gustafson, 1994), 0.82 and 0.90 for the Italian version (Ragazzoni et al.,2002), 0.83 and 0.94 for the Finnish version (Kivimaki et al., 1997), and 0.83 and 0.94 forthe Norwegian version (Mathisen et al., 2004).

Concerning construct validity of the TCI, studies have produced mixed results.Exploratory factor analyses revealed a five-factor solution in the UK, Italian andNorwegian samples (Anderson and West, 1998; Ragazzoni et al., 2002; Mathisen et al.,2004). In this factor solution, items referring to the frequency that team membersinteract were distinguished from the participative safety scale and loaded in the fifthfactor, named “Interaction Frequency.” A four-factor solution was revealed in theSwedish and Finish samples (Agrell and Gustafson, 1994; Kivimaki et al., 1997),although the latter gave mixed results. Factor analyses were run on two samples,where a five-factor solution was appropriate in one sample and both four and fivefactor solutions were acceptable in the other (Kivimaki et al., 1997).

The aim of the present study is to discuss the Greek version of the TCI and itsvalidation, and as a consequence to accentuate any differences between the European

IJOA15,4

344

samples (in terms of inter-correlations between the scales in different samples). We alsotried to provide information about any potential correlations between the demographicvariables and the four dimensions of team climate for innovation.

Method procedureA large number of work teams from the Greek public and private sector agreed toparticipate in this research. Participants completed the survey during working hours.There were 236 employees who participated in the study, with a total of 52 work teams.The 58.1 percent of the total sample were males and the remaining females. Their ageranged between 20 and 64 years and the mean age was 38.40 years. Team size rangedbetween two and 25 persons with a median size of four members (SD ¼ 5:02). From the236 participants in the study, 30 (12.7 percent) team members were elementary(primary) school graduates, 91 (38.6 percent) persons had finished high school, 87 (36.9percent) were university graduates, and 5.9 percent of the participants had completed apostgraduate degree. Team members were told that the purpose of the study was togain understanding of the way organizational teams function and work together.Teams were promised and were given feedback following completion of the survey.

Team members were asked to fill it out the survey on their own time, independently,and without consulting their peers. In order to reach acceptable response rates, the firstauthor was present during the survey administration in order to assist in cases whenparticipants had problems with the procedure, rather than waiting until all participantsreturned the materials sometime in the near future. As a result, a very high responserate was achieved (95 percent).

MeasuresThe TCITwo experienced Greek organizational psychologists translated the original 44-itemversion of the TCI into Greek. A bilingual individual then translated the Greek versionback into English, and the two versions were compared by the authors for potentialdifferences in meaning and structure. Participants filled in the questionnaireindividually and were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each itemon a five-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.

ResultsItem analysisThe item analysis was carried out by correlating each relevant item with the respectivescale (excluding the item itself). This process worked well for all but one item (“we allinfluence each other”), which did not conform to other items in the scale: Cronbach’salpha coefficient increased sufficiently when the item was deleted. The item changedthe corrected correlation between the item and the scale in connection with theremaining items (r ¼ 0:26), while the scale variance changed when the item wasdeleted. The correlations between the item and the other items of the scale were verylow, and it did not contribute to the total aggregation of the scale (“participativesafety”). However, Cronbach’s alpha for participative safety was r ¼ 0:88. Cronbach’salpha was calculated separately and for the remaining scales. In particular, Cronbach’salpha for Vision was r ¼ 0:87, for Support for Innovation scale r ¼ 0:87, and for TaskOrientation scale r ¼ 0:87. In the three last scales Cronbach’s alphas decreased if any

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

345

item was deleted and the subsequent correlations between the remaining items in thethree scales are about the same, while the scales’ mean, the corrected item-total scalecorrelations, and the scales’ variance if the item deleted is not changed considerably.

Exploratory factor analysisTo confirm the factor structure provided by the original version of the TCI (AndersonandWest, 1994), an exploratory factor analysis was performed on the original 38 items.Our purpose was to clarify whether the four- or the five-factor structure explained ourdata. Pre-analysis tests for the suitability of the sample for factor-analysis werecomputed as recommended by Comrey (1978). A principal component analysisindicated that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy for factoranalysis was 0.91. Our sample seemed to be adequate for the method we used, and theindex was above the limit of 0.70. If below this number, factor analysis may not havebeen a good approach. The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant at p , 0:001,indicating the suitability of this data for factor analytic procedures. The ratio of caseswas 236:38, or, approximately, 6:1. This ratio is acceptable according to some factoranalysts (e.g. Gorsuch, 1983; Nunnally, 1978), although others have argued that smallerratios are also acceptable (Comrey, 1978; Ferguson, 1981; Kline, 1986).

A principle components analysis using Kaiser’s criterion (that suggests only factorswith eigenvalues higher than 1.0 be retained) indicated that seven factors should beretained. In order to estimate how many factors have meaning to our data, we appliedthe Cattell Scree Test (Cattell, 1966), which represents a delineation of the eigenvalues(or the percentage of the explained variance of values). Cattell’s Scree Test, which wasapplied to the initial EFA without iteration, revealed a five- or four-factor solution(Figure 1). The solution of five factors accounted for 55.67 percent of the total variance,while the solution of four factors accounted for 52.28 percent. Thus, randomization thatincluded the systematic factors of individual differences and the error of randomsampling, was in one case 44.33 percent and in the other 47.72 percent.

To achieve the best solution, we limited the number of factors in one case to five andin the other to four with iteration and Varimax (orthogonal rotation). The solution offive factors gave mixed results. According to prior findings (Anderson and West,1998), the fifth factor comprises four items relating to the frequency of interaction bothformally and informally between team members (e.g. “We keep in touch with eachother as a team”; “We keep in regular contact with each other”; “Members of the teammeet frequently to talk both formally and informally,” etc.). In our case, these itemsloaded onto the second factor (the factor of Participative safety). It was not possible toextract the fifth factor related to frequency of interaction. Hence, we decided to retainfour factors. Table I presents the factor solution and the factor loadings after Varimaxrotation.

Most items loaded on their theoretical scale. Items 27 to 37 loaded onto two differentfactors, the fourth and fifth. Except for the item 3, the remaining items are related to thescale of Vision of the original version of the TCI. A more comprehensive review ofTable I convinced us that we had the four-factor solution. Item 33 (“How worthwhile doyou think these objectives are to you?”), item 34 (“How worthwhile do you think theseobjectives are to the organization?”), and item 35 (“How worthwhile do you think theseobjectives are to the wider society?”) were responsible for the dichotomy problemsassociated with the factor of Vision. Probably, acquiescence effects created the

IJOA15,4

346

Figure 1.Scree plot of initial

analysis

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

347

problem. As a result, we combined the fourth and fifth factor into one factor (the Factorof Vision).

The solution of a four factor structure with the factor of “Vision” divided into twosub factors accounted for 55.67 percent of the total variance. Factor 1, which accounted

FactorsSupport forinnovation

Participativesafety

Taskorientation Vision1 Vision2

i11 0.690i21 0.672i25 0.660i17 0.655i24 0.600i2 0.526i23 0.495 0.466 0.352i6 0.442i10 0.440i8 0.730i7 0.655i16 0.386 0.611i20 0.489 0.575i14 0.569i5 0.551i13 0.536i19 0.449 0.460i1 0.418 0.422i26 0.383i40 0.739i43 0.425 0.682i41 0.669i38 0.510 0.614i39 0.370 0.582 0.384i42 0.387 0.543i44 0.399i30 0.702i31 0.650i37 0.627i36 0.542 0.364i27 0.519i3 0.417i34 0.767i35 0.720i28 0.375 0.630i32 0.351 0.604i29 0.534 0.552i33 0.418 0.483Percentage of variance 36.156 6.721 4.980 4.425 3.394

Notes: For best understanding of this table we have omitted all correlations beyond j0.35j; Extractionmethod: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization;Rotation converged in 12 iterations

Table I.Varimax rotated factorloadings of the Greekversion of the TeamClimate Inventory

IJOA15,4

348

for 36.15 percent of the variance, included items exclusively related to the theoretical“Support for innovation” scale. Factor 2 accounted for 6.72 percent of the total varianceand included items from the theoretical “Participative safety” scale. Four items thatleaned towards a fifth factor of the original version of TCI (Anderson and West, 1998)related to the frequency of interaction of team members, were included in the“Participative safety” scale. Factor 3 accounted for 4.98 percent of the variance andincluded items exclusively from the theoretical “Task orientation” scale. Factor 4displayed unambiguous patterns of item loadings. It accounted for one case, or 4.42percent of the total variance, and in the remaining 3.39 percent of the variance includeditems from the theoretical “Vision” scale. In our sample, the order of factor appearanceis different from that of the original analysis introduced by Anderson and West (1998).In the original analysis, the factors were retrieved in the order of vision, participativesafety, support for innovation, and interaction frequency.

More detailed analyses of this solution were undertaken in order to examine theinternal consistency of the factors and factor independence. Table II presentsintercorrelations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, means, and standard deviations for thefour factors as composite scales on this sample. Alpha coefficients ranged between 0.87and 0.89, indicating acceptable levels of internal homogeneity and reliability for all fourfactors. Scale correlations ranged between 0.57 (Vision with Participative safety) and0.78 (Participative safety with Support for innovation). All scales were significantlyand positively intercorrelated (p , 0:01). Moreover, these correlations were not toohigh to suggest concerns over multicollinearity.

Table III shows the Pearson’s production moment correlation matrix for the scalescalculated on the basis of the English, Italian, Finnish, and Norwegian factor analyses,and the data from the Greek factor analysis, which indicate similar and adequate levelsof intra-scale correlation.

DiscussionThe results of the present study were largely congruent with the results of the originalstudy using British samples (Anderson and West, 1994; Agrell and Gustafson, 1994).The item analysis showed that all items should be retained, except for item 3 of thetotal scale. The stability of the Greek version of the instrument was very high. Thiswas indicated by the internal consistency of the four dimensions of the TCI factoranalysis that showed that the four-factor solution was appropriate for the Greeksample (explained variance 55.67 percent). The TCI also appears to be a reliable andvalid measure for assessing team climate for innovation in the Greek context. However,the order of extraction of the factors differs from the English version.

Support for innovation was the first scale extracted. It almost has the samecomposition as the English scale with the addition of one item (“There are real attemptsto share information throughout the team”). We decided to include this in theParticipative safety scale because it also demonstrated very high cross-loadings withthis factor. Even though clear objectives are an important issue to manufacturing andservice organizations in Greece, the support of innovative behaviors seems to be a morecritical factor since Greece is among countries seeking new, radical investments insectors that have fallen behind (e.g. Information Technology). Thus, the teams in theGreek sample appear to have the desire and willingness to initiate new ideas of doingwork, and this effort is supported by other members and teams’ supervisors. However,

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

349

nMean

SD

aVision

Participative

safety

Supportfor

innovation

Task

orientation

Total

TCI

Vision

236

41.14

7.01

0.87

1.00

Participativesafety

236

39.98

7.89

0.89

0.57

*1.00

Supportforinnovation

236

29.60

5.50

0.87

0.63

*0.78

*1.00

Taskorientation

236

25.58

5.98

0.88

0.61

*0.68

*0.70

*1.00

Total

TCI

236

136.32

22.81

0.8

2*

0.8

9*

0.8

9*

0.8

5*

1.00

Note:*

p,

0:01Table II.

Descriptive statistics andintercorrelation matrixfor the four-factorsolution in the Greeksample

IJOA15,4

350

the issue of concern is whether more radical, but risky decisions of teams are taken intoconsideration by the upper levels of organizations in Greece.

Participative safety and interaction frequency were not extracted separately andinstead constituted a unique factor. In the English version, interaction frequency,which refers to the frequency that team members interact through participation indecision making involved in the change process, is a subscale of participative safety.This indicates partial overlapping of their contents. The concept of participative safetyis related both to the qualitative and the quantitative aspects of interactions amongteam members. Generally, our findings suggest that the Greek teams introduced new

ScalesSupport forinnovation

ParticipativeSafety

Taskorientation Vision

Interactionfrequency

TCI: original versionSupport for innovation 1.00Participative safety 0.76 * 1.00Task orientation 0.72 * 0.63 * 1.00Vision 0.62 * 0.60 * 0.65 * 1.00Interaction frequency 0.73 * 0.77 * 0.61 * 0.56 * 1.00

TCI: validation of the original versionSupport for innovation 1.00Participative safety 0.60 * 1.00Task orientation 0.62 * 0.60 * 1.00Vision 0.60 * 0.46 * 0.59 * 1.00Interaction frequency 0.44 * 0.49 * 0.49 * 0.35 * 1.00

TCI: Italian versionSupport for innovation 1.00Participative safety 0.78 * 1.00Task orientation 0.73 * 0.62 * 1.00Vision 0.64 * 0.60 * 0.65 * 1.00Interaction frequency 0.58 * 0.64 * 0.47 * 0.45 * 1.00

TCI: Finnish versionSupport for innovation 1.00Participative safety 0.71 * 1.00Task orientation 0.67 * 0.60 * 1.00Vision 0.54 * 0.54 * 0.65 * 1.00Interaction frequency 0.56 * 0.85 * 0.51 * 0.44 * 1.00

TCI: Norwegian version (aggregated response data)Support for innovation 1.00Participative safety 0.86 * 1.00Task orientation 0.78 * 0.80 * 1.00Vision 0.59 * 0.62 * 0.67 * 1.00

TCI: Greek versionSupport for innovation 1.00Participative safety 0.57 * 1.00Task orientation 0.63 * 0.78 * 1.00Vision 0.61 * 0.68 * 0.70 * 1.00

Note: * p , 0:01

Table III.Intercorrelation matrix

for TCI scales and for thesix different samples

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

351

ideas when there was trust among team members. Trust has a positive effect on thequality of task processes by enhancing the perceived value of team members’interactions, their personal commitment and participation in decision making(Friedlander et al., 1985). Greek team members are possibly engaged in activities thatincrease team performance and team innovation when organizational climates supportactions that improve established methods, processes, and practices.

Our data reproduced the task orientation scale in a similar fashion to the originalversion, indicating the robustness of the specific scale in different samples. Teammembers are sufficiently focused on each others’ roles, skills, and the tasks required tomeet their needs. At the same time, there appears to be an appropriate level ofawareness within the team of each member’s role and responsibility, leading to theteams’ ability to cope constructively with professional conflicts (Williams andLaungani, 1999).

Vision did not load as a single scale, as might have been expected. Instead, Visionwas divided into two subscales. Speculating about this unexpected division, we couldsay that in Greek organizations work teams do not set objectives internally, but on thecontrary these are imposed by the top management of the organization. Work teams,especially in the public sector, are defined by a common purpose (Hayes, 1997), andteam members’ task interdependence. Since job tasks rarely change, team vision islikely never being achieved, but only occasionally in cases when new processes andsystems are introduced as a result of changes in the global market.

An important finding in this study is that the translation of the original version ofthe TCI into Greek did not dramatically alter the factor structure of the instrument,meaning that the items showed cross-cultural similarities. However, the overall scoresof the TCI scales were lower in the Greek sample compared to the British sample.Greek employees revealed less sharedness among team members in terms of teams’objectives. They also were found to participate less frequently in decision-makingprocesses regarding new initiatives compared to their British counterparts. They areless task-oriented and believe that their teams hinder movements towards new ways ofdoing things in their work, thus being less supportive of innovative behaviors andactions. It is likely that these results are due to the prevailing work culture of Greekorganizations, and that the UK sample was taken from health service organizationswhile the Greek sample covered a greater variety of different types of organizationalbranches and different types of organizations.

The internal consistency of the TCI was adequate, as suggested by the Cronbachalpha values being above the threshold of acceptability for the scales calculatedaccording to the English version, and they were not so high as to indicate overlapbetween items as in the case of the Norwegian version of the TCI (Mathisen et al., 2004).The authors of the Norwegian version recommended that a short version of the TCIwould be acceptable (Mathisen et al., 2004).

The study’s results indicate that it was not possible to confirm the five-factorsolution. Our data suggest that the four-factor solution is preferred, though anotherfactor analysis is needed to confirm the findings of the exploratory factor analysis.However, the present results show that there is no indication that frequency ofparticipation, a quantitative aspect of participation, can be distinguished from othermore qualitative aspects of participation. This finding is not in accordance with priorstudies of the TCI (Anderson and West, 1998; Kivimaki et al., 1997; Ragazzoni et al.,

IJOA15,4

352

2002). Respective studies in the UK, Finland, Norway, and Italy suggested a fifth scalebe added to the TCI. Our study revealed the same factor structure as in the Swedishsample, probably indicating cultural similarities that require further exploration interms of work climate between the two countries.

The main purpose of this study was practical in nature. Teamwork in both thepublic and private sectors is gaining credibility as a means of improving productivity.Team climate is an essential aspect to ensure smooth team functioning. However, up tonow, no instruments to measure team climate have been available in Greece. TCI is auseful instrument that can be used in organizational climate surveys, team buildingand development, selection of new members for teams, and group development.However, further research is needed to investigate potential measures of the TCI indifferent contexts. Probably more research must be conducted on a team level usingaggregated scores. This perhaps is considered a more appropriate validation of theinstrument, since the theoretical basis of the TCI is a model of team climate forinnovation and TCI is a team-level instrument (Mathisen et al., 2004). Our study gavesome insights on how this scale functions in Greek organizational settings, followinginstructions set by previous studies.

References

Agrell, A. and Gustafson, R. (1994), “The Team Climate Inventory (TCI) and group innovation:a psychometric test on a Swedish sample of work groups”, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 143-51.

Amabile, T.M. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 357-76.

Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B. andCummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich,CT, pp. 123-67.

Amabile, T.M. and Gryskiewicz, S.S. (1989), “The creative environment scales: workenvironment inventory”, Creative Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 231-53.

Ancona, D. and Caldwell, D. (1992), “Demography and design: predictors of new product teamperformance”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 321-41.

Anderson, N. and King, N. (1993), “Innovation in organizations”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T.(Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8, Wiley,Chichester, pp. 1-34.

Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1994), The Team Climate Inventory: Manual and User’s Guide,ASE/NFER-Nelson Press, Windsor.

Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1996), “The team climate inventory: development of the TCI andits applications in teambuilding for innovativeness”, European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-66.

Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation:development and validation of the team climate inventory”, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 235-58.

Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. and Nijstad, B. (2004), “The routinization of innovation research:a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science”, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 147-73.

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

353

Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000),“Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas”, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 265-85.

Bowers, D.G. and Seashore, S.E. (1966), “Predicting organizational effectiveness with afour-factor theory of leadership”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 238-63.

Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.E. (1970), Managerial Behavior,Performance and Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Cattell, R.B. (1966), “The scree test for the number of factors”, Multivariate Behavioral Research,Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 140-61.

Coch, L. and French, J.R. (1948), “Overcoming resistance to change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1No. 4, pp. 512-32.

Comrey, A. (1978), “Common methodological problems in factor analytical studies”, Journal ofClinical & Consulting Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 648-59.

Dougherty, D. (1987), “New products in old organizations: the myth of the better mousetrap insearch of the beaten path”, PhD dissertation, Sloan School of Management, MIT,Cambridge, MA.

Ferguson, G.A. (1981), Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Friedlander, M.L., Thibodeau, J.R., Nichols, M.P., Tucker, C. and Snyder, J. (1985), “Introducingsemantic cohesion analysis: a study of group talk”, Small Group Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 3,pp. 285-302.

Galbraith, J.R. (1977), Organization Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Gorsuch, R. (1983), Factor Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.

Guzzo, R.A. (1988), “Financial incentives and their varying effects on productivity”, in Whitney, P.and Ochsman, R.B. (Eds), Psychology and Productivity, Plenum Press, New York, NY,pp. 81-92.

Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.E. (1992), “Group performance and intergroup relations inorganizations”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 3, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,pp. 269-313.

Hackman, J.R. (1990), Groups that Work (and Those that Don’t): Creating Conditions for EffectiveTeamwork, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Hayes, N. (1997), Successful Team Management, International Thomson Business Press, London.

Jackson, S.E. (1996), “The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams”, inWest, M.A.(Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 53-76.

James, L.R. and Sells, S.B. (1981), “Psychological climate: theoretical perspectives and empiricalresearch”, in Magnusson, D. (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An InternationalPerspective, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 275-95.

Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work, Simon & Schuster,New York, NY.

Kanter, R.M. (1988), “When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and socialconditions for innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 97-102.

Kiesler, S.B. (1978), Interpersonal Processes in Groups and Organizations, AHM Publishing,Arlington Heights, IL.

IJOA15,4

354

King, N. (1990), “Innovation at work: the research literature”, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (Eds),Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, Wiley,Chichester, pp. 3-13.

King, N. and Anderson, N. (2002), Managing Innovation and Change: A Critical Guide forOrganizations, Thomson, London.

Kivimaki, M., Kuk, G., Elovainio, M., Thomson, L., Kalliomaki-Levanto, T. and Heikkila, A.(1997), “The Team Climate Inventory (TCI) – four or five factors? Testing the structure ofTCI in samples of low and high complexity jobs”, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 375-89.

Kline, P. (1986), A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design, Methuen,London.

Knapp, R.H. (1963), “Demographic, cultural and personality attributes of scientists”, in Taylor, C.W.and Barron, E.R. (Eds), Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development, Wiley,New York, NY, pp. 205-16.

Lawler, E.E. and Hackman, J.R. (1969), “Impact of employee participation in the development ofpay incentive plans: a field experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 6,pp. 467-71.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. and Weingart, L. (2001), “Maximizing cross-functional new productteams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 779-93.

McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Mathisen, G.E., Torsheim, T. and Einarsen, S. (2006), “The team-level model of climate forinnovation: a two-level confirmatory factor analysis”, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 23-35.

Mathisen, G.E., Einarsen, S., Jørstad, K. and Brønnick, K.S. (2004), “Climate for work groupcreativity and innovation: Norwegian validation of the team climate inventory (TCI)”,Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 383-92.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors atwork”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 607-34.

Pelz, D.C. (1956), “Some social factors related to performance in a research organization”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 310-25.

Pfeffer, J. and O’Reilly, C. (1987), “Hospital demography and turnover among nurses”, IndustrialRelations, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 158-73.

Poulton, B.C. (1995), “Effective multidisciplinary teamwork in primary health care”, unpublisheddoctoral thesis, Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.

Ragazzoni, P., Baiardi, P., Zotti, A-M., Anderson, N. andWest, M. (2002), “Italian validation of theTeam Climate Inventory: a measure of team climate for innovation”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 325-36.

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P., Slattery, T. and Sardessai, R. (2005), “Determinants of innovativework behaviour: development and test of an integrated model”, Creativity and InnovationManagement, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 142-50.

Rogers, C. (1954), “Toward a theory of creativity”, Review of General Semantics, Vol. 2 No. 4,pp. 249-60.

Rousseau, D.M. (1988), “The construction of climate in organizational research”, in Cooper, C.L.and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 3, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 139-59.

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

355

Schneider, B. (1990), “The climate for service: an application of the climate construct”,in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,pp. 383-412.

Schneider, B. and Reichers, A.E. (1983), “On the etiology of climates”, Personnel Psychology,Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 19-39.

Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model ofindividual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,pp. 580-607.

Sells, S.B. and James, L.R. (1987), “Organizational climate”, in Nesselroade, J.L. and Cattell, R.B.(Eds), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, John Wiley, New York, NY,pp. 915-37.

Shaw, M.E. (1971), Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

Thistlethwaite, D.L. (1963), “The college environment as a determinant of research potentiality”,in Taylor, C.W. and Barton, E. (Eds), Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development,Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 265-71.

Torrance, E.E. (1965), Rewarding Creative Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Unsworth, K. and West, M.A. (1998), “Employee innovation: generation, implementation orboth?”, paper presented at the International Work Psychology Conference, University ofSheffield, Institute of Work Psychology, Sheffield, July.

Van de Ven, A., Angle, H.L. and Poole, M. (1989), Research on the Management of Innovation:The Minnesota Studies, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

West, M.A. (1990), “The social psychology of innovation in groups”, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L.(Eds), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies,Wiley, Chichester.

West, M.A. (2001), “The human team: basic motivations and innovations”, in Anderson, N.,Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 2, Sage, New York, NY, pp. 270-88.

West, M.A. (2002), “Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds? An integrative model of creativityand innovation implementation within groups”, Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 355-86.

West, M.A. and Anderson, N.R. (1996), “Innovation in top management teams”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 680-93.

West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1989), “Innovation at work: psychological perspectives”, SocialBehaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 15-30.

Williams, G. and Laungani, P. (1999), “Analysis of teamwork in an NHS community trust:an empirical study”, Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-28.

Wright, B. and Cordery, J. (2003), “The ideal participative state: a prelude to work groupeffectiveness”, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 171-88.

About the authorsSofia C. Chatzi (MSc, Panteion University, Athens) is an organizational psychologist and PhDCandidate in Organizational Behavior/Psychology at Athens University of Economics andBusiness, Athens, Greece. Her research interests include team innovation, innovative behavior,personality influences, and selecting individuals in team settings. Her current research focuseson examining the impact of individual differences on team processes and team innovation. Shehas presented her work at national and international conferences.

IJOA15,4

356

Ioannis Nikolaou (PhD, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology) isLecturer in Organizational Behavior at Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens,Greece. Previously, he was Head of the Training Department at Egnatia Bank in Athens, and hehas also taught at Greek Open University, Panteion University, and the University of NewHaven. He has published in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Personality &Individual Differences, Stress and Health, International Journal of Organizational Analysis,Personnel Review, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Change Management, EmployeeRelations, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, and other journals. IoannisNikolaou is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: inikol@xueb.gr

Validation of thefour-factor TCI

in Greece

357

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints